Why Monogamy Is Ridiculous

iceaura said:
I don't think there is any evidence that courtship and relationship building is any less fundamental a mating strategy than opportunistic assault, among humans.

For starters, rape is seldom a reliable reproductive strategy in animals that require extensive child care, and is not even a good impregnation tactic in a mammal without clear and reliable fertility markers.

So it seems unlikely that self-control is necessary to curb a natural impulse to rape in most men. Not even sublimation. The visible evidence is the other way around - a fairly large percentage of rapists (and other coercive or contractual situations such as prostitution) seem to be engaging in fantasy and pursuing a delusion, even to the point of needing some kind of role-played imitation of courtship and seduction, as if they were "sublimating" a need for willing cooperation.
Click to expand...

Such an opinion is born of naiveté. Rape is a reliable reproductive strategy, especially in today's world where children unsupported by a father are likely to survive. What do you think yields more offspring: rape 100 (or more) women a year for 20 years, or raise 2 children for 20 years?

Back when there was no way to test for the father of the child, it must've been far more reliable: the woman could simply convince someone else that it was his child, and then get that man to protect her and raise her child.
 
Rape is a reliable reproductive strategy, especially in today's world
Click to expand...
In modern society???
No...
You're going to get locked up and the fetus aborted.

I've been before.

The next time...one of the two of us dies.

I will do my best to make sure it ain't me.

If all I have is my bare hands...I will rip his throat out with them, and pull his testes off to hold in front of his eyes while he drowns in his own blood.
There will be lots of DNA evidence.

I'm a lot less angry than I used to be...really :D
Gotten positively mellow from how I was in my 20's.
 
Last edited:
chimpkin said:
In modern society???
No...
You're going to get locked up and the fetus aborted.

I've been before.

The next time...one of the two of us dies.

I will do my best to make sure it ain't me.

If all I have is my bare hands...I will rip his throat out with them, and pull his testes off to hold in front of his eyes while he drowns in his own blood.
There will be lots of DNA evidence.

I'm a lot less angry than I used to be...really :D
Gotten positively mellow from how I was in my 20's.
Click to expand...

Of course you only respond to one line, and none of the arguments. Because your response is motivated by emotions only.

To your "points": In modern society, women usually don't report rape so nobody is going to prison, and rape babies as a consequence are also less likely to be aborted (raping religious women would also up the chances of preventing this from happening). Rapists can also put someone in a position where they can't fight back, and where they can't identify them, thus no persecution. Out of shame, women might hide the abortion and not want to talk about it, until it is too late to abort. Or fool another man into thinking its his child. Or just have the baby because of a variety of reasons, like it being her child as well.

So YES: you will have more offspring if you rape a lot of women over 20 years, rather than raise only 2 over 20 years.

Rape is a far more successful reproduction strategy than monogamy. Also, it is ALWAYS more successful than monogamy for a man who can't get a spouse.
 
Of course you only respond to one line, and none of the arguments.
Click to expand...

How can I tell you haven't read the thread?

.I've already responded clinically and politely in post #115 with logical arguments as to why I thought it was less likely to result in overall reproductive success in the past.

If you have stats to back up your assertions?

And now that plan B and the pill is widely available...no.

I also discussed a sociological study of 550 rapists whose motivation was dominance or overt sadism...after all those who rape with their hands or objects ( happens) obviously are not doing any reproducing.
Those who rape men or boys...again.
Those who rape prepubescent girls (12% of the statistical data cited by RAINN.)

Again...in order to fertilize an egg you have to time it just right. With rape it's a lottery. In a relationship...well, women get enthusiastic when fertile. Reproductive success is much more guaranteed.
You'd have to rape a lot of women, who may attack you right back.

If you're too lazy to reread the rational argument I put upthread and are willing to post something that's already been argued over earlier
...I've jolly well had enough of repeating myself on this subject.
And being clinical about it.
Y'all have officially pissed me off.

And I also am an example of a point I brought up: rape puts the attacker at risk.
Even one with a weapon. Because I don't care. Some of us don't. Some of us are just as vicious.
 
Last edited:
s0meguy said:
Such an opinion is born of naiveté. Rape is a reliable reproductive strategy, especially in today's world where children unsupported by a father are likely to survive.
Click to expand...

Depends what you consider rape. Forced rape is unacceptable in modern society, deceiving someone into having sex with you when they otherwise wouldn't is fine. :shrug:
 
Anti-Flag said:
Depends what you consider rape. Forced rape is unacceptable in modern society. . .
Click to expand...

Unfortunately not true in many places. In Libya, Sierra Leone, the Sudan and Bosnia it's used as a political tool. Indeed, this phenomenon is bad enough that one in five women will be a victim of rape (or attempted rape) in her lifetime.

Fortunately many societies are now very much against non-consensual sex of any kind, and more and more countries are adopting tougher laws and policies against this kind of crime. Let's hope this trend continues,
 
s0meguy said:
Of course you only respond to one line, and none of the arguments. Because your response is motivated by emotions only.

To your "points": In modern society, women usually don't report rape so nobody is going to prison, and rape babies as a consequence are also less likely to be aborted (raping religious women would also up the chances of preventing this from happening). Rapists can also put someone in a position where they can't fight back, and where they can't identify them, thus no persecution. Out of shame, women might hide the abortion and not want to talk about it, until it is too late to abort. Or fool another man into thinking its his child. Or just have the baby because of a variety of reasons, like it being her child as well.

So YES: you will have more offspring if you rape a lot of women over 20 years, rather than raise only 2 over 20 years.

Rape is a far more successful reproduction strategy than monogamy. Also, it is ALWAYS more successful than monogamy for a man who can't get a spouse.
Click to expand...

An.......interesting response.......

I'm curious as to what type of work you do......

.......and whether you are a person in a committed relationship.

Examined from my own perspective, I'm not sure how many women I know would be comfortable in a relationship with a person who holds such views, even as debate material.......
 
chimpkin said:
How can I tell you haven't read the thread?

.I've already responded clinically and politely in post #115 with logical arguments as to why I thought it was less likely to result in overall reproductive success in the past.

If you have stats to back up your assertions?

And now that plan B and the pill is widely available...no.

I also discussed a sociological study of 550 rapists whose motivation was dominance or overt sadism...after all those who rape with their hands or objects ( happens) obviously are not doing any reproducing.
Those who rape men or boys...again.
Those who rape prepubescent girls (12% of the statistical data cited by RAINN.)

Again...in order to fertilize an egg you have to time it just right. With rape it's a lottery. In a relationship...well, women get enthusiastic when fertile. Reproductive success is much more guaranteed.
You'd have to rape a lot of women, who may attack you right back.

If you're too lazy to reread the rational argument I put upthread and are willing to post something that's already been argued over earlier
...I've jolly well had enough of repeating myself on this subject.
And being clinical about it.
Y'all have officially pissed me off.

And I also am an example of a point I brought up: rape puts the attacker at risk.
Even one with a weapon. Because I don't care. Some of us don't. Some of us are just as vicious.
Click to expand...

I'm with you on this one.

Men who resort to rape I would suggest be culled from the gene pool.

To balance matters out, women who are persistent cock teases should be neutered and dropped off with the above men on a deserted island, where both can act out their 'natural urges'.

Both problems dealt with......
 
billvon said:
Unfortunately not true in many places. In Libya, Sierra Leone, the Sudan and Bosnia it's used as a political tool. Indeed, this phenomenon is bad enough that one in five women will be a victim of rape (or attempted rape) in her lifetime.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't call those particularly modern places. They're also poor war torn countries who will use anything as a political tool. I'm sure murder is acceptable in those countries too. :shrug:
 
Fraggle Rocker said:
No I won't. I had a vasectomy in 1975.

My kids all have four legs and tails.
Click to expand...

You realize that anyone just joining this thread would be a tiny bit confused by the biology suggested in the above? ;)

My kids fit the same description. How many/what varieties have you got, Fraggle?
 
Anti-Flag said:
I wouldn't call those particularly modern places.
Click to expand...

Agreed 100%, and fortunately they are becoming less numerous. The use of rape as a political tool unfortunately has a long history, and the effects of it (primarily the effects of having a large population of children born after such an attack) have been studied pretty extensively.
 
s0meguy said:
Such an opinion is born of naiveté. Rape is a reliable reproductive strategy, especially in today's world where children unsupported by a father are likely to survive. What do you think yields more offspring: rape 100 (or more) women a year for 20 years, or raise 2 children for 20 years?

Back when there was no way to test for the father of the child, it must've been far more reliable: the woman could simply convince someone else that it was his child, and then get that man to protect her and raise her child.
Click to expand...

How the hell do you think that works?

People who purposely try and get pregnant can take a year or so. Now translate that to simply raping a woman whenever you can. I doubt the odds of catching her when she's fertile are that high.

You're also relying on putting yourself at risk. Those victims are probably going to fight back, possibly hurt you. Even if they're much smaller and can't do anything effective back, they're probably going to scream for help which will draw members of their group. So now you're reliant on getting them far enough away from the rest of their pack that a scream won't carry. In the Neolithic or so era that you're on about, we're talking woodlands or plains. That's a lot of distance. You don't have the benefit of luring her into a loud nightclub or building with thick walls. See how that rape strategy suddenly starts sounding impractical??
 
s0meguy said:
Of course you only respond to one line, and none of the arguments. Because your response is motivated by emotions only.

To your "points": In modern society, women usually don't report rape so nobody is going to prison, and rape babies as a consequence are also less likely to be aborted (raping religious women would also up the chances of preventing this from happening). Rapists can also put someone in a position where they can't fight back, and where they can't identify them, thus no persecution. Out of shame, women might hide the abortion and not want to talk about it, until it is too late to abort. Or fool another man into thinking its his child. Or just have the baby because of a variety of reasons, like it being her child as well.

So YES: you will have more offspring if you rape a lot of women over 20 years, rather than raise only 2 over 20 years.

Rape is a far more successful reproduction strategy than monogamy. Also, it is ALWAYS more successful than monogamy for a man who can't get a spouse.
Click to expand...

Genghis Khan may have sowed more wild oats than any other human in history. I have to wonder how many of his children were a result of rape?

How many people living today are descendants of Genghis Khan?
 
Genghis Khan may have sowed more wild oats than any other human in history. I have to wonder how many of his children were a result of rape?
Click to expand...

Well, he was a rather unique individual, though...in an unsettled time.

Rape may be a vaguely effective secondary reproductive strategy.

I just think it would have always been less successful than pair-bonding, which is why we've been strongly selected for our instinct to do that. We've just also been strongly selected for wanting lots of sex.

Women in Bosnia were actually put in rape camps where they were raped by hundreds of soldiers.
The resultant babies were generally put in the sort of orphanages you read about, with pretty hideous results.

Keep in mind we've been hunter-gatherers for the majority of human existence. Hunter-gatherer women don't eat very much, they are less fertile than women who eat more and move around less
They don't ovulate as often as women in horticultural/agricultural societies-women who eat more ovulate like clockwork-we consider this normal...well, hunter-gatherer women are only fertile when they've been eating well. If the tribe hits a bad patch and their bodyfat goes down, they don't ovulate.

You see this also in women with anorexia-they stop ovulating or having periods when their BMI gets low enough.

So, the chances of impregnation by one act are even further reduced. A couple of other things nobody mentioned-a hunter-gatherer might rape a woman of a neighboring tribe...and start a feud. If he raped a tribe member he'd almost certainly be raping a relative, or the woman of a relative.
Remember, exile from the group was generally a death sentence.

Another issue...that baby might have been killed-although that would depend on the tribal understanding of reproduction. Or they might have killed the woman-as in the generally very patriarchal pastoral societies...think Israel, as most of us will be familiar with the old testament laws.

Again, as above, they might have killed him-meaning no more raping, and if he didn't impregnate that once...no continuation for him.
 
scheherazade said:
I'm with you on this one.

Men who resort to rape I would suggest be culled from the gene pool.

To balance matters out, women who are persistent cock teases should be neutered and dropped off with the above men on a deserted island, where both can act out their 'natural urges'.

Both problems dealt with......
Click to expand...

Really? Have you researched this behavior?

The difference between flirting and being a prick tease, is what?

I’ve known men who think that if a woman smiles at them that it’s a signal that she wants to have sex.

Are you implying that flirtatious women deserve to be raped? :bugeye:
 
Hellenologophobia said:
Really? Have you researched this behavior?

The difference between flirting and being a prick tease, is what?

I’ve known men who think that if a woman smiles at them that it’s a signal that she wants to have sex.

Are you implying that flirtatious women deserve to be raped? :bugeye:
Click to expand...

I have experienced 'sexual interference', as a preteen, in a remote location where there was no possible assistance or escape from unwanted attention. From that I have a serious distrust of men.

Likewise, my experience and observations of the conduct of a minority of women would make me rather sympathetic to the plight of the male, and give me a logical understanding of the biological urge to take his objective by force if necessary.

Neither conduct seems appropriate for an intelligent species.

My harsh suggestion of allowing these two groups to visit their arts upon each other reflects my conflicted emotions where non-consensual sex is concerned, and that I consider some women to act in an inappropriate and provocative manner toward men without consideration for negative potential outcomes.
 
scheherazade said:
I have experienced 'sexual interference', as a preteen, in a remote location where there was no possible assistance or escape from unwanted attention. From that I have a serious distrust of men.

Likewise, my experience and observations of the conduct of a minority of women would make me rather sympathetic to the plight of the male, and give me a logical understanding of the biological urge to take his objective by force if necessary.

Neither conduct seems appropriate for an intelligent species.

My harsh suggestion of allowing these two groups to visit their arts upon each other reflects my conflicted emotions where non-consensual sex is concerned, and that I consider some women to act in an inappropriate and provocative manner toward men without consideration for negative potential outcomes.
Click to expand...

It represents a way to verify an interest in another, while at the same time drawing a boundary.

Almost everyone has done it at one time or another, both male and females. Some do it for an ego boost but it also enables people to size up potential mates.

A (cock tease) is a negative connotation used by boys, who are unsuccessful. You do not owe anyone sex because you flirt with them or they bought you dinner.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top